CONSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Victorias Milling Company v. SSS FACTS: SSS issued circular no.

22 which provides that computation of premiums due shall include all employees renumeration, all bonuses and overtime pay as well as the cash value of other media of renumeration. VMC protested the validity of the circular as it was contradictory to the previous circular which provides for another interpretation of the term compensation i.e exclusion of overtime pay and bonuses. RA 1161 provides that compensation shall mean all renumeration except bonuses and overtime pay.However RA 1792, the amendatory law deleted such exemption. ISSUE: Whether or not circular 22 is valid. HELD: Yes. Circular 22 was issued to informed those concerned with the interpret tion of the law in the light of the amendment. It did not add detail or duty to the law. While it is true that terms are to be interpreted with their well accepted meaning, nevertheless, when such term is specifically defined in a particular law, such interpretation shall be adopted. Particular phrase may have one meaning for one purpose and another meaning for some other. Whatever prior executive or judicial interpretation may have given in a phrase shall give way to the clear mandate of new law. NFA v. MASADA FACTS: MASADA Security agency provides security services to NFA. Meanwhile, Regional Wage board issued several wage orders mandating increases in daily wage rate. MASADA requested NFA for corresponding wage adjustment which consists of increase in minimum wage, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month and premiums in PAGIBIG and SSS. NFA granted the request only with respect to minimum wage citing a law which provides their liability to shoulder only increment in statutory minimum wage. DOLE sustained the claim of MASADA that wage includes overtime pay ect.

ISSUE: Whether or not the liability of NFA is only limited to minimum wage. HELD: Yes. Wage pertains to no other than statutory minimum wage. Where a statute by its terms is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not by interpretation be extended to others. NFA cannot be made to pay other than the increase in statutory minimum wage notwithstanding the fact that overtime pay ect. Are based on minimum wage because that meaning of wage has been limited by the law. Settled rule is that, when the law is clear, it must be applied literally without interpretation.Administrative interpretations are at best advisory for it is the court that will finally determine what the law means. Interpretion by DOLE in this case went as far as supplementing what is otherwise not stated by the law which cannot bind this Court. SMGC Realty v. Office of the Prsident FACTS: SMGC received a copy of the decision of HLURB on October 23, 1995. Considering the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen days, petitioner has only until November 7, 1995. Unfortunately they only filed on November 20 which wastwenty eight days from the receipt of decision and obviously out of time. SMGC contended that the period to appeal is 30 days citing HLURB rules of procedure which provides that period to perfect an appeal to the office of the Pres. Is 30 days and in accordance with AO 18. That AO on the otherhand, provides that unless otherwise provided by special law, the period to appeal is 30 days. ISSUE: Whether or not the period to appeal is 30 days. HELD: No. It is fifteen days. The period of 30 days is subject to qualification that there are no other statutory periods available. If there are other special law governing such period, it will prevail over the 30 days. This is in line with the rule that administrative rule in order to be valid must not contradict but conform with the enabling law. 30 days pset forth in HLURB rules no longer holds true for being in conflict with presidential decrees issued like PD 957 and 1344.

1|administrative

law, ALCARAZ-FRANCISCO

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION CIR v. Azucena Reyes FACTS: Maria died leaving a property. Reyes, one of the decedent heirs receive a letter of authority which provides for investigation of estate tax case. Preliminary assessment reveals almost 14m of estate tax. Reyes proposed for 50% payment citing heirs inability to pay tax due. CIR rejected pointing out that tax was chargeable not to heirs butto estate and may be satisfied through public auction. Reyes protested. While the case was pending Revenue regulation was issued offering tax payers with tax liabilities an opportunity of settlement. Reyes filed an application of such settlement and motion for postponement citing her pending application. ISSUE: Whether or not Reyes can avail the opportunity to settle tax liabilities. HELD: Yes. The general rule is that statutes are prospective. However, statutes that are remedial or that do not create or take away vested rights do not fall under the general rule. The procedure in case assessment is protested does not create or take away vested rights and can surely be applied retroactively. The revenue regulation in this case merely implements the law. Though it was issued not immediate after the law, still the law is not inoperative. Rosario Dadulo v. Court of Appeals FACTS: Patangui filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an administrative complaint against Dadulo, Brgy. Chairperson for allegedly carting away with the aid of Barangay security her items and using such in building brgy outpost. Dadulo on her part declared that Patangui was illegaly building with out permit to do so, structure on lad belonging to NAWASA. ISSUE: Whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove the guilt of Dadulo.

HELD: Yes. Administrative proceedings are governed by substantial evidence rule , which means more than mere scintilla of evidence which a reasonable mind may accept as adequate conclusion even equal minds opine otherwise. Guilt will be sustained as long as it is by substantial evidence. The sweeping general denial and unexplained possession of seized materials proved the guilt of Dadulo. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF ADMIN LAWS Republic v. Express Telecommunications Company FACTS: Bayantel filed an application to operate Cellular mobile Telephone System. Shortly thereafter NTC issued memorandum 4 directing all interested applicants to file on or before a certain date and deffering applicants after such date. Application of Bayantel was archived due to non availability of frequencies. Years after, NTC again issued memorandum 5 citing the availability of frequencies which prompted the Bayantel to file motion to revive their application. NTC granted.Extelcom, where the Bayantel is a substantial stockholder opposed the revival citing that memorandum 4 declared its policy of to defer acceptance of applicants. Theyikewise contended that frequencies available has been allocated to all operators and more than sufficient to meet the needs of public. ISSUE: Whether or not the application of Bayantel shall be revived. HELD: Yes. The NTC was clothed with sufficient discretion to act on matters solely whithin its competence. Clearly, the need for healthy compettion in telecommunications is sufficient to consider those applicants who are willing to provide services for greater public service. That was the intention that came to light with the issuance of memorandum providing for availability of frequencies. There is a need to provide telecommunication facilities in unserved areas of the country. NTC in issuing such memorandum acted in pursuance of its avowed duty.

2|administrative

law, ALCARAZ-FRANCISCO

Administrative rule and interpretation, distinguished. When an administrative agency promulgate rules through its rule making power delegated by legislature, it makes a new law with force and effect of a valid law.It is binding before the courts. While when it renders opinion, it merely interprets a pre existing law. It is merely an advisory because it is the court who will finally determine what the law means. Kinds of executive interpretations of law 1. Construction by executive or administrative officers directly called to implement the law. It may be express(embodied in a circular or directive ect.) or implied( usage or practice). 2. Construction by Secretary of Justice as Chief legal adviser of the government. Generally controlling unless reprobated by the Pres. 3. Ruling of executive offi dcer in exercise of his quasi judicial power. San Miguel Corp. v. Inciong FACTS: Under PD 851 and its implementing rules, the basic salary of an employee is used as basis in computation of 13th month pay. Any computations or remunerations which are not deemed to be part of basic salary are excluded in computation. Inciong, then acting Labor secretary consistent on the stand that since the effectivity of the PD payments of sick Leave, vacation leave as well as work perforemed on rest days and holidays are included in the computation of 13th month pay. Coca cola free workers, the private respondent cited innumerable rulings of Inciong in computation of mandatory bonus. San Miguel assails such rulings and vigorously contends that basic salary is the only basis of such computation. ISSUE: Whether or not only the basic salary is the basis of computing 13th month pay. HELD: Yes. The catch all exclusionary phrase all other allowances and monetary benefits which are not considered as part of basic salary shows the intention to strip basic salary from all other additions like sick,

vacation and maternity leave. While prior Rules and Regulations casts doubt because of the definition of basic salary which includes all remunerations paid by employer to employee, the supplementary rules issued by then Labor Secretary Ople cured the defect by defining basic salary by excluding other remunerations. Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction Contemporaneous construction by administrative agencies are accorded with great respect because they are presumed that they knew the legislative intent specially when it was issued for considerable length of time .However, it may be disturbed by courts if there is an error of law, grave abuse of discretion or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction. Asturias Sugar Central v. Commissioner of Customs(COC) FACTS: Asturias sugar is engaged in production and milling of centrifugal sugar in jute bags. They made importations of sugars but due to certain reasons, not all of it was exported. The remaining was exported after the expiration of one year within which to export such. Petitioners tried to ask for one week extension but was denied and accordingly charged with customs duties and special import tax due thereon which they paid under protest. They were now asking for refund and questioning the failure of COC to extend the period of one year. ISSUE: Whether or not it is within the power of COC to extend the period of exportation. HELD: No. The one year period provided in the Tarrif Act is non extendible and compliance therewith is mandatory. While such law fixed one year within which to export, it is silent as to its extension. This was probably why the Bureau of Customs issued administrative orders to eliminate confusion and and consider the one year period as non extendible. Considering the said law has not been subject of judicial interpretations, it now give rise to doctrine of judicial respect for administrative construction. Only when the Court of last resort has not interpreted a statute that the interpretations of administrative agencies will be considered. In the present case, Congress enacted Tarrif and

3|administrative

law, ALCARAZ-FRANCISCO

Customs code without amending the non extendible one year period construction given by the Bureau, it can be implied with that there was implied approval of Congress which greatly increases the weight of construction.

When contemporaneous construction were disregarded The court may disregard the contemporaneous construction in the following instances provided in several court decisions; a. b. c. d. Where the is no ambiguity in the law Where construction is clearly erroneous Where strong reason to contrary exist Where court has given the statute previous interpretation

Erroneous construction creates no rightsexceptions As a general rule, erroneous construction does not creates vested right on the part of those who relied therefrom. Vested cannot arise from interpretations of those whose primary duty is to enforce the law and not to interpret it. Government is not estopped by such mistakes. However, it admits exception which is and fair play. Example is in tax cases where tax payers rely upon a memorandum in manner of paying tax. When it is rescinded, they cannot be made to pay the taxes on periods it was enforced.

4|administrative

law, ALCARAZ-FRANCISCO